i would like to lead -- i would like to read you something. i'm not a constitutional expert. i follow constitutional law. in the federalist papers number government, what is itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? it went back to refer to the great security against gradual concentration of the civil powers in the same department consists in giving to those who would minister each department and the constitutional means and .otives to resist encroachment the government was set up to specifically prevent this. , i am seeings here, and not only in this administration, but in need

radius of mistreating and several administrations, the executive branch is taking for granted that they have exclusive power over issues that they do not. i'm concerned about that and what we do to prevent that. where does this stop? this is my question. we have seen the president and the past presidents, concerning the war powers act, which, i think, have violated the constitution. in this administration, they detained illegal immigrants. they stopped enforcement of drug laws, i know that because i'm a prosecutor and i saw it. he stopped the enforcement of mandatory sentencing and parts of obamacare. the benghazi issue. the irs issue. how many more things you think have to occur, thinking that a prosecutor, one of those is not enough evidence.

two of those, in and of themselves, is not enough evidence. the violations that i see and have just listed, i think, is enough evidence to ask questions . where do you draw the lines and what i have recited as enough evidence to start asking questions about the president >> first ofs power? all, congressman, i cannot address all of the -- all of the -- the things that you have raised. many of those things, let's be honest about it, are honest disagreements about policy or how to interpret the law. but your interpretation of the law is -- you are saying that you do not agree with how i interpret the law and you say i am wrong. sentence,sh my raising the specter of some kind of grotesque residential

authority,f unwanted it is not based on fact. mr. cantor believed that his interpretation of the law would sink obamacare, in his view, is correct. or, i guess he does. the president disagrees with that and the president has good reason to disagree with that. to say that he is not taking care -- here. me reclaim my time when laws are enacted, they should be followed to the letter. it is not being done here. i've heard you raise the issue of prior administrations doing it. tome, that is no excuse not receive this from a congressional standpoint. whether it is a obamacare, the q,r powers act, going into ira these are all issues i'm concerned about. you criticize and, you know, you have made remarks concerning --

i don't think that you take some of this seriously. give me a answer as to what you -- towe need to do to get curtail the executive power in the way that i think it has been abused over the years. >> you may answer the question quickly. >> i think you can pass legislation to overturn an executive action that you disapprove of and you can withhold funds for it. -- 94% of obamacare is mandatory spending and the democrats passed that without any votes from republicans. it is mandatory spending and nothing can be done about that at this point. it is the law. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from new york. rankingistinguished

member in leadership -- and leadership. if i could start with professor rosenkranz, i want to explore the issue of prosecutorial executive branch discretion. particularly in the context of nation'scement of our immigration laws. but i can start with foundational questions -- if i can start with foundational questions, the department of justice is an executive branch agency. the federal prosecutors are exercising executive branch action in the context of their participation in need from the justice system. >> they are exercising executive authority. >> and prosecutors make a when prosecutors make a decision to charge

someone with a serious offense bargain agree to a plea to a lesser included offense, it short of what they may have concluded that the evidence that particular defendant was guilty of, is that an appropriate use of prosecutorial discretion inside of the constitution? >> it would not be appropriate if it was motivated by race or something. described,s that you if the prosecutor did not think he had the resources or evidence, that is an appropriate exercise of discretion. contextrosecutorial inside the department of justice or any new immigration context with homeland security, they had theability to prioritize

force. is that correct? >> the executive branch has the authority to husband the resources in the most efficient way that they see fit. if the president does not have the money or resources to completely execute every law, he has to, by necessity, make decisions about enforcement priorities. once you have concluded, i believe, -- >> you have concluded, i believe, that the presidential exercise of has beenes unconstitutional. >> in the immigration context? yes, i do. caseu believe that is the because you contend that it was a wide-ranging exercise that was not made on a case-by-case

basis. what is the foundation of your belief? >> the first is that it goes further than me hypotheticals we discussed before and this is not a prosecutor deciding on one case. this is the president deciding on 1.8 million cases. the second thing is that the president is deciding on exactly the set of cases that congress and decidedxempting not to exempt. that is what is shocking about this. , you arelaim my time familiar with the criteria that is set forth for these case-by- case basis. >> yes. criteria is that they must've entered before their 16th birthday and be younger than 31.

that is one criteria and the other is that they cannot have or committedns three misdemeanor offenses. those are pretty specific enumerated categories. another category is that you cannot pose a threat to public safety or national security. is that not pretty broad? within which, discretion can be exercised on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not you pose a threat to public safety. that is not a specifically constrained factor that people either fall within or automatically fall outside of. dramatic -- it is a dramatic shift in the status quo and people will be allowed to

stay. a tinyt imagine that fraction will be found inside of that exception. >> i would note that more than 450,000 have been granted deferred action and an excess of 100,000 have been denied access or have not received a grant of discretion. box thank you. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. it strikes me that the law can grant or for bid action. in some instances, require you to file an income tax return. is the constitution capable of ignoring both categories of law? said, several times, congressman garrity, -- cannotthe president

refuse to enforce a law because the policy reasons. >> the congress decided that if you possess a controlled substance, you get a certain in prison.ime you may or may not like mandatory minimum sentences, what this administration summarily dispensed with that law. my question to you is whether or not the chief executive ken and failed to enforce categories of law that are permissive and mandatory. >> it is established that the executive branch has prosecutors prosecuteretion -- orial discretion. >> can the president -- let's assume that a statute requires you to have two pieces of identification to purchase a firearm, can the chief executive

knock it down to one? >> i guess i would -- -- can achieve executive >> can the chief executive knock it down to one form of identification? of limits onare the presidential pardon authority. >> you would say he could question mark >> under the pardon authority, he could. much even before the act russian mark and he do it before the act is committed? what's i am sorry question mark >> i'm sorry? >> can the president failed to enforce election laws? >> before it is initiated? >> i think i know the answer to

that question. is, if you can dispense with immigration law or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you dispense of aws?tion l >> i think we have gone over this ground. >> let's do it one more time. can the president suspend election laws? >> no. >> why not? >> because we live in a government of laws and the president is bound to obey them and apply them. the aca,ot applying marijuana laws, mandatory minimums, what is the difference with election laws? >> we have a disagreement on whether or not he is applying those loss. did eric holder instruct his

prosecutors to no longer follow mandatory minimums? >> this is an area where i do not know as much as you do. thatfind that shocking anybody would not know more than i do on any topic. >> my impression is that he is not doing what you have said. >> tell me how i am wrong. memo thatr sent out a said we will no longer put in drug amounts. do you agree with me that congress can pass mandatory minimum sentences? >> constitutionally, yes. maximums?gress pass ot other words, you cann get more than 30 years. >> yes. >> can the president exceed it?

>> how would he do that? keep someone in prison for more than his prison term? timen you do it for more than congress says is the law? know, it's really, this is kind of fruitless and is an area i do not know. what aresor turley, the limits to prosecutorial discretion? ws? not election la couldannot imagine you justify this through discretion. this is an entire category people will no longer be subject to the law. that is a legislative decision. the discretion is on a case-by- case basis by the department of justice. when the department of justice said they will extend it to all

sections of loss, they are engaging in a legislative act and not an act of prosecutorial discretion. it has to be drawn from here and include categorical rejections to millions of people. >> i was thought this was an individual prosecutor determining whether or not they have enough facts to substantially result in a conviction on a case-by-case basis. if a president is ignoring entire categories of the law, whether it is immigration, mandatory minimums, the aca, what is the remedy? >> as you know, i do criminal defense work and i would never go to a prosecutor and say, i want you to contact the entire class of which my client belongs. the prosecutor would look at me and say, are you insane.

i am not congress. in terms of where we go from here, i'm not too sure. the concern i have is that this body is being circumvented and being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. many of these questions are not close any president is outside of the line. it has to go in front of a court and the court has to grant reviews. that is where we have this most serious constitutional crisis. this body is becoming less and less relevant. --i will recommen acknowledge ms. jackson lee. >> i want to thank the witnesses. whenever they come before our body, it is valuable and we trust your judgment.

we disagree to vigorously. let me say what mr. lazarus .poke of and let me cite him makewaste is what this hearing creates. mr. turley has suggested that this body is on the verge of a basis of the relevancy. leadership,he house we have passed no legislation for the president to implement. we have not passed immigration reform and we have not dealt with the mandatory minimums. we have not dealt with the budgetary process or sequester. if we could do our job, the relevance would exceed expectations. the event a few

hours ago. we had dreamers. thear as i'm concerned, duty of the president is to be the ultimate giver of relief inside of the constitution and the necessary relief of the people who were begging relief. intellectually , take care that the laws are faithfully executed and commission the officers of the united states. i can be a believer. my faith says that the president is taking, within the context of loss, the ability to help the most more rubble. nerable. what we're doing here is a rhetorical wasteland. as a federal prosecutor, each

day, prosecutors are making distinctive decisions about who to prosecute and how, within the context of the law. to answer the question for you, mr. lazarus, you follow the law and you have the right, in a prosecutorial posture, to determine if you're prosecuting or not. that is what happened with mandatory minimums and the issues of the drugs. that is what the attorney general is talking of. laws into thewing wasteland, we are. it is interesting that we have not understood the question of homeland security. she issued a memo to the staff and has an inherent authority to

deal with policy. each of the deferred deferments for dreamers is individually assessed. what is this constitutional goobledy gop. this.o not understand i cannot wave a magic wand. we have to go to the process. it goes through immigration enforcement and others. i'm taken aback that this issue does not come with humanitarianism. it should be hearing of the failure of this congress to act on its constitutional responsibilities. the affordable care act, if i -- to go back to a

comment about these exchanges, another wasteland. if your state does not have an exchange, on practical english you and the state cannot comply. state are left in the wasteland of noncompliance. what you get on? we established the national exchanges. would you prefer to have state insurers? yes. would we prefer will republicans not to encourage young people to not get coverage? yes. if the direction is to run such exchanges that allows poor people do have insurance, obviously, these are allowed. i'm cutting into the middle of my question. in essence, it stands in the

shoes of the state. doesn't this illustrate why you and not mr. cannon are correct and that the president is carefully and faithfully implementing the law? would you go over this again? >> that interpretation is what i support and what the president and administration supports. it will prevail in court. that if a state provides to set up an exchange, the federal government shall establish such an exchange in the law. the concernstated, are that the federal government will stand in the shoes of the state in operating this exchange. it will be the same and have all the same powers and authorities

that an exchange that is being managed by a state government would have. any other interpretation, the one that mr. cannon is promoting --orously makes no sense vigorously, makes no sense and would cause the exchange part of the aca to fail in every state. it makes no sense. >> he didn't answer. does this not exceed the authority of the president? >> we are already two minutes over. give us a pithy response. >> mr. lazarus -- >> the president is not violating his responsibility by acting on his interpretation. >> matt asked for a submission

submite record -- may i on signing statements by myself? >> before recognized the gym and from idaho -- before i recognize the gentleman from idaho, i want to avail you to the history of this committee. the oversight control of this one solitarynot piece of immigration reform was produced. there are gentleman, like the one from illinois, who are vigorous. let's not rewrite history. the democrats controlled this committee and they had nothing with respect to immigration reform. do not talk to me about what a

priority this is. >> thank you for being here. i have listened for 2.5 hours. i have not heard a single time thee you have told me where federal exchanges are given the authority to grant subsidies. you talk about policies and what you think the president wants. you talk about what you think the democrats want. statute,here, in the it says that the federal exchanges should give the subsidy. >> i didn't go into detail and i do not think that mr. cannon did. >> i think he did. heme mentioned that it was allocated to the state exchanges. include a testimony that i get to a subcommittee.

it goes into detail. >> name one. i want one section of the law. >> you don't know? >> i didn't say that. >> name one section of the law. one section of the law, mr. lazarus. is one that section congresswoman lee referred to, the law says that, when the state does not set up its own exchange, the secretary of health and human services shall establish such an exchange. the administration's interpretation is that such exchange means that they will operate on the same terms and have the same authority. michael does not agree with that. important,nd this is when the statue defines that

statute defines this, it says that the exchange will be established by the state under the relevant section. then, -- >> i reclaim my time. i asked a simple question. think both of you come from different points of view and have some of the same concerns that i have had about the bush administration and i read your writings, mr. turley. >> bless you! >> i was concerned about the imperial presidency and concerned about having a republican and republicans in congress who are not willing to be a check and a balance on a republican resident. like -- president.

i cannot remember which one of you said this, you said that you liked the fact that obama was going to be a check on what previous presidents have done. i'm disappointed that we are at this hearing and i'm surprised that my friends do not think that this is an important hearing. tched and wh ined. they do not have a concern about what the president did with his authority. >> i believe that this administration is facing a critical crossroads. what this body cannot become it is a debating society. they issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied with by the president.

i think that is where we are. mr. lazarus says that the president can ignore an express statement of policy grounds. if you look at the individual mandate, the policy is that a great number of people are upset because they thought there was a be and switch. -- bait and switch. that is a political or policy issue with the president said that he did not want that to happen now. it seems to me, that that is not a policy question, i don't know what is. definition,us's own that is outside the president. this thend you, is body that existed when it was formed and doesn't have the same gravitational pull and authority was given by the framers? you are the keepers of this authority. the framers assumed that you would have the institutional wherewithal and the ambition to defend the turf that is the

legislative branch. >> it seems to me that the president can do anything that we don't act on. beyond.that is if you follow mr. lazarus's logic, he was make sure that nobody who came near the legally to work in agriculture, for example, because there would be humanitarian concerns. i am a proponent of immigration reform and i wanted to be done. i think the actions of the president have made it less likely that we will act because we do not know what he will and will not enforce. line, asis no bright far as i know, to be drawn between enforcement discretion

and legislative. action, wherever you draw that line, he is on the wrong side of it. curtail the to abuse of prosecutorial discretion is to have less crimes. we have a lot of crimes in our immigration laws that should not be there. i think our drug war crazy a lot a lot ofals -- creates criminals that should not be there. prosecutors across this country are stretched so thin and prisons are overcrowded. you may situation we have a surplus of crimes and not enough resources to prosecute all of them. you have a lot more power in the hands of individual prosecutors and the executive branch. level, thata macro

is how you attack this problem. >> the gentleman yields. i recognize mr. gutierrez. >> thank you very much. once again, we are not legislating in this committee. we could be using this time to find common ground and have a strenuous and substantive debate on public policy. emptyd, we are offering assurances and shaping political messages for next fall and not worrying about the president that we know in this trust -- distrust. we could be passing laws for the betterment of the american people. i hope this goes -- the president is not a member of this committee and does not sit

on this committee. he does not have a vote in the house. we should craft legislation and get it done. we should make sure that the legislation is enforced. some people say that he is not enforcing legislation. when he begany, and got sworn in as president, securing communities was nothing. there are hundreds of agreements with counties. how do you think the apparatus was created to deport 2 million people in the last five years? by accident? that apparatus did not exist under george bush and was created under this administration and implemented by this president? . withments have been made one locality after in other and theit here and say that

congresswoman who hired a , her mom is under a current order of deportation and quit her job as a congressional aide to go fight for her mom. we say that he is not enforcing the law. if you are fighting this administration each and every day, you find that this president is enforcing the law. unfortunately, she should not be limiting his prosecutorial discretion. he should be expanding it. on the substantive issue of backup. 2010.sed a dream act in 216-208. in the senate, they need 60

votes to get something done. --lis talk what the framers we always talk about the framers, i do not remember them saying that we needed 60 votes to get things done in the senate. the will of the centers in the house of the representatives was to protect the dreamers. the president took the will of the house and the senate, if not for this new rule that was invented. that you need this super majority of 60 votes. colleagues on the republican side would have a difficult time hitting things past. passed.ng things i just want to say that i do not itw about the other, but, seems like the former ins general counsel, the former ins themal counsel, each of

establish that the president of the united states has prosecutorial discretion and get to decide who to prosecute and who not to. that is what he did. he said children aside. he said he is no longer going to prosecute them because they do not present an eminent threat. and guess what, mr. chairman? 500,000 of them are walking around. i assure you, because i know how this place works, if you can find one and bring them up year and show us how he can cause damage, they would have already brought him up. three of them work in my congressional office. they are american citizens in everything but a piece of paper. i'm going to say this. 2007-2008 charge from

and we were worried about our majority. you guys were beating the crap out of us. i'm sorry, maybe that were should be used. then, we were in the majority and we did nothing. i agree with you. we did nothing. let's not repeat history. let's do something. i want to end with this. ire's what i'd like to do, want to step outside of the democratic party. i know there are men and women who want to step outside of the republican party and join the american party on the issue of immigration. i know there is common ground that we can reach. then, the president will not have to take these actions. we will say that the

congresswoman's staffers shouldn't be deported. they're here and there are 11 million of them. let's figure out a way to legalize their status. and, if you want triggers, but put them in -- let's put them in. they're going to be american citizens. if you pass legislation and they don't go to citizenship, they will say that they did not do a good enough job. that is a positive thing. somebody comes and says they did not do a good enough job. you have been kind and generous. eventually, we will call you all back and you will let us know how we get this done. i pray that that happens. it is the right thing for america. franks. recognize mr. prettysubject is

profound and related to the rule of law. there are so many examples that some of us .2. it is hard -- to. it is hard to name them all. worthy mr.t to some asian seems to step outside the boundaries of the rule of law. contributions,l holder'sater ban, mr. attempt to reform criminal justice by selective enforcement, unilaterally ignoring immigration laws, recess appointments, fast and furious, unconstitutional wiretaps of the ap, the iraq scandal, and, of

course obamacare. examples of are where the president has executed rossi tutorial discretion -- prosecutorial discretion. they are more along the lines of what professor turley said. they are royal prerogatives. that is what we had the unpleasantness with great britain about. the subject is of profound significance. i would suggest, mr. chairman, that this administration has helped themselves unconstrained why the constitution and the truth, in many cases. even the process of getting the law, this was passed in a unique situation where, you know, i see that, cannon's testimony

president obama's unfaithfulness ca is so wanton that it is no longer fair to say that the aca is the law of the land. some of us have signed onto a house resolution that we believe that obamacare has yet to be the law of the land because it violates the constitution. we do not talk about that a lot. because theicant origination clause was vital to the constitution coming in to existence. negotiationritical that took place that allow the constitution to exist. it requires that all bills for raising revenue originate in the house.

cato, has written an excellent piece. i asked that this be put in the record and i would like you to address it. ifatottom line is that the u.s. senate can take an unrelated piece of legislation and strike everything but the number. and, if they can take the senate health care bill, replace it in its entirety -- if they didn't take any bill and do that, i would suggest to you that, especially after the supreme court labeled obamacare a tax officially, if it can be done this way, i would suggest to you that the origination clause is a

dead letter and there is no purpose for it to be in the constitution. if it is all right, mr. cannon, i address my question to you. can you illuminate this? is ais is -- this provision of the cost to ship that has not really been used or employed at the supreme court, to knock down a revenue measure that originated in the senate instead of the house, as required by the constitution. aca isappened with the pp a more extreme example of the abuse -- violation of the origination clause than what we have seen in the past. house,came up from the the senate stripped out everything, kept only the build , andr -- bill number

inserted the affordable care act . we didn't know that it was a tax then. there is nothing in the bill number that is revenue. all of the revenue measures have been stripped out. if the origination clause means anything, it means that that revenue measure that the senate passed in the house passed, that , thew call the pp aca senate did not have the power to originate the bill like that. the difficulty is, will the that part of the constitution?

when are you amending something and when are you creating a new bill? reasonable people disagree about where that line is drawn and i don't think they can disagree whether or not the guiding of hr 7590 and inserting a new revenue measure is on the wrong side of that line. it remains to be seen whether or not the courts will hold that part of the constitution. if they do, they will have to strike down the entire law. is a lawsuitthere that is been filed by the pacific legal foundation that challenges the individual mandate under the origination clause. >> only did -- if this administration does not succeed in stacking the d c circuit, we will find out whether or not the origination clause means anything. >> i recognize the gentleman

from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor, throughout your testimony, you have alluded too many times when you think the president has stepped over the line and we have talked about a number of them. i would ask for you to recap and give us the top five instances where you think he has overstepped the line. >> well, thank you. i do think that there are a number of provisions in the aca where he overstepped the line. the decision on the individual mandate strikes me as a policy determination. he did not want to see enforced, given the outlook opposition -- public opposition. act,is not the clean air

which was stuck in the mire of regulatory is agreements as a command-and-control statute. i also believe that the mandate, the employer mandates, which was constitutes a significant change. i also talk about immigration issues across the line. i grew the president on the decision that was made. that does not matter. it was not made in a way that is allowed in our constitution. would pointhings i to is, if you look at these questions, a couple of things jumped out of you -- out at you, there is political division and deadlock. this is the issue that the framers wanted to go through a legislative process. our process, unlike other

wetems that would explode, have an implosion and we direct pressures to the center of congress. from that, we take disparate factional interests and go into a majority drank -- majority arian compromise. the others are the $454 million in the prevention fund. that was issued for federal health care exchanges. the other was for the 7 million in the state exchanges. the subsidies for congressional employees. it is less significant than the others. what bothers me about the examples is that it goes to the power of the purse. we have seen courts say, do not worry, you're the power of the purse. this administration has

challenged that and taking money that was dedicated for one purpose and give it to unspecified areas. this challenges the very foundation of the congress. >> you want to add to this list? i have four. -- i agreehose items with those items. there is a nuclear regulatory commission that refuse to make a decision about yucca mountain. that is a striking example where the judge quote came from. the other example that i return rs targeted enforcement. to my mind, the core of this requirement is nondiscriminatory enforcement. >> do want to add a thing to

this, mr. lazarus? >> i like to ask, isn't the nuclear regulatory -- >> i'm reclaiming my time, mr. lazarus. witht use my last minute mr. rosencrantz. you said that impeachment would be appropriate to address one of these discretions. we have the issue of declaring war without congressional authorization. with 10le of one to 10, representing impeachment, we have rattled off six instances. and there's the seventh with what he is doing with our drug laws and the insistence that our prosecutors not charge relevant facts. seven -- out of

any of these seven, when any of them trigger what you would be impeachment- appropriate? >> i don't want to draw that line. i think this body should think about a pattern and if they see a pattern. they should think about willful conduct. that is the most egregious. willful violation or a display of a pattern of disregard for constitutional prohibitions. that is what you should keep an eye on. >> i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you. i've sat here and i have listened to both sides. the thing that disturbs me more isut this hearing, probably,

that congressman king said it is one of the most interesting and relevant hearings that we have done. -- this isbrings out one of the most disturbing hearings that we have had to have and it is a progression issue. the last 15-ned in 20 years and think as a progression of executives that both republicans and democrats have used to push boundaries and stretch boundaries. president, he the has stepped over those boundaries. we can have legal discussions up here all the time. the question is, people just don't get it and they look at the government and what is happening. they say, this is not the way it is supposed to work. your members schoolhouse rock?

-- do you remember schoolhouse rock? if you cannot communicate it to the people who live under the situation, there is a problem. we talk about the power of the purse. ever since i've gotten appear, -- up here, i have believed that this institution has to matter again. it is article one. congress has to matter again and we have to take seriously our role of budgeting. also, holding accountable when we are being bypassed. that is a concern. you're talking about an issue that has been well discussed. you talk about elections and that has been discussed. the other issue for me is what can you do?

you go up there and you just impeach him or cut off funds and it becomes a blur. now, we have mr. lazarus and i respect his right to a different that isthan mine, stepped over. mr. turley, you said, agree or not, it is not in the bounds of the constitution. that is interesting for us to talk about for a moment. it comes back to what do we do. besides "getting our act together" as congress. i want to ask you about where do we go to reclaim our article one and constitutional role so that it can be a three-legged stool? >> despite my deepest concerns,

i remain optimistic and i'm a chicago bears fan. i live most of my life unrequited. people a good reason why do not understand what is going on. we are acting outside the system and we have taken the madisonian system off-line. improvisational world of constitutional law. of the people who think that the solution is elections. the framers did not intend for elections to solve constitutional problems. they created checks and balances . you could have majority are in terror that is, gated and -- perpetuated in advance through elections.

standardery difficult and it is not a substitute. hearing that this body should consider is on member standing. i've written on this for years. if we had members standing and going to court to raise constitutional acts, much of these problems would go away because of guaranteed review. what we've seen for the white house is based on the assumption, not necessarily a bad one, that no one can call them to account. >> i think you are right. watched our sports teams in atlanta, i am an optimist. i'm an optimistic realist. i look at this capital and i still believe that it matters. i believe that we are a shining light for the world. i'm going to spend all my time,

backst i can, to bring us to a checks and balances system where the article one authority is respected and honored. we have a system that most people grew up understanding. this hearing will allow the respect of the people who said this year. >> i recognize the gem in from florida. that's the gentleman from florida -- the gentleman from florida. >> can the president and large taxparameters of statutory and imply them to areas outside? >> no. >> this is an outright question and it depends on the stat utes. >> you cite bureaucrats inside the administration and do not cite any quotes from the president. it is interesting, with this

most recent fix, here's what the president said. people -- people can keep their plans. today, we extend that printable peoplele -- principal to -- in other words, obamacare as a aandfather clause -- has grandfather clause and anything enacted after it is illegal. with the president is saying -- what the president is saying is beyond what the statute contemplates and you are saying that that is appropriate. >> you are making a good point. it is appropriate if it is temporary. a bill that would

have grandfathered in the plans and we should do that. think thatthat -- i it is appropriate as a temporary measure to effectively -- >> it is against the statute. >> t ishat andw -- aso congress is doing whatu il want. d i'm abe >> you didn't make some good points. stated -- icite the would pick up the phone and call the speaker and say this does not go to the essence of the law that there is not a normal political environment and it comes to obamacare is what he

said. i think that is totally outlandish avonex lunation. even more because congress had made -- passed a bill to delay the employer mandate precisely for the reason that the president suggests. let me ask you one more question. i appreciate your written testimony. you cite a lot of examples of the founding fathers. you have made the point that the take care clause does that mean what the rest of these guys say. cite any actual founding fathers so can you cite for me a federalist paper, hamilton wrote the number on executive power. that would substantiate your assertion that it is consistent with the original understanding. there is very little discussion. >> hamilton.

>> so you're making the assertion that is not justified either historical fact. i understand the theory that you are positing. it is tough. you have to back it up and acted up.turley who would you point to? >> can i finish? the constitutional convention, this is what i said the bases of the interpretation. originally what became the take care clause did not have faithfully, it did not have take care in it. the president shall carry into execution of the laws. forward --te got when for that got changed. faithfully and take care were added. >> and there is not -- that clearly shows and

scholars on all sides have accepted, that shows the president is to faithfully in good faith -- >> you have made that point. my question was about, show me something where i can go with hamilton saying this or not. point about the language is more correct. this is the legislative record. the text matters there but it does not matter with the aca. i do think the idea of when you're talking about mr. cannon's argument. nobody in congress when they did not intend for the subsidy to do numbers did not read. you could keep your plan to meet could keep your doctor and now we have members of congress running around saying i did not know you would not be will to keep your plan.

the idea that you are to rely on that over the text of the but with this health care law, i make up any law. surely you cannot point to what congress intended into these intricate provisions. many of them did not read or understand it. >> it is mr. cannon who is claiming it was the intention. was intentional and purposeful of congress to construe the law in the cramped way in which he does. >> the chair will recognize the tillman from texas. >> thank you. i think all of our witnesses. it is good to see some of you back. i do not remember seeing all of you. otherwise it would be all of you. if you wanted to suppose with me backyou are in a town hall

in the congressional district and you had an alimentary school askedstudent stand up and this question, i would like to know how each of you would answer this child's question. what right does the house of representatives have to pick and choose what part of government gets funding, what is your response? professor turley. >> the answer is clear. holdis sort of orbital that these three branches are placed by framers. the key power given to congress and the house of representatives was the power of the purse to control the funds. what is alarming about the situation is even a power is being challenged. article one, section eight

gives you the power to decide what provisions, what you want to fund and what you do not want to fund. >> professor cannon -- lazarus. rosencrantz took the words out of my mouth. >> article one, section eight. providedd ask that we copy of the answers to this question two senate leader reid since he asked that question. , theregard to libya president said he did not need to come to congress to get our authority to start bombing in libya. and that was a concern to some of us. asked by thed been organization of islamic conference of 57 states, whatever they have got, 50, 57. and also i some of the nato allies that use libyan oil so he

did not need congress's approval those requests. he was prepared to help the syrian rebels in which al qaeda had become not initially but he had become the most profound startnd he was ready to bombing the syrian leader that hillary clinton had called a reformer. initially he planned to do that without congresses consent. he did not think he needed consent. but obviously once there was a lot of political pushback he threw it to congress and let them decide. i am curious from each of you. what gives the president the authority to order bombing even if he promises to limit the numbers of people that he will kill, what gives him authority to go start bombing a country.

we would consider it an act of war. what gives him that authority, i am curious from each of you. >> it is a great question. no one has accused president obama of being inclined to engage in war without a declaration. i was in court with members of this committee saying exactly that. and whatn or conflict disturbed this is the white house came back and said the reason we do not need a declaration of war is because the president alone defines what a war is. he simply is saying this is not a war. and what we talk about the dangers, this is a danger of a different kind. not only a danger separation of powers and dreck violation of the express image of the constitution but this administration, through these acts and the large number of drone attacks is returning the world to a state of nature. we are taking down article international legal principles. that have governed this world,

that have respected territorial limitation. i just spoke to the nato commentary and and i told them, you will loathe the day that you endorsed the u.s. position that they could take unilateral action when someone vaporizes someone in the middle of london. >> let me more fed into this question to each of you and get your answer. an president ordered american citizen killed without due process as we know it. i asked the question in this room at another hearing. how far does that word or -- order extend? if he came back to capitol hill and lead prayers as he had before with congressional staters -- staffers, was that order so good, i wanted to know in case the strike was still on.

what authority do you think the president has to order american citizens killed in other countries in which we are not at ?ar or in the u.s. if i could get answers to that question from each of you. >> as quickly as you can given the subject matter. >> i do not believe he has authority to do that. they have cited things like hot pursuit which makes no sense. it is not an imminent threat. i believe the president's kill flagrantly and dangerously unconstitutional. >> is quite a difficult question. the obama administration's office of legal counsel memo on this is quite strained so they are reaching for analogies and analysis that is quite unconvincing, i would say. >> mr. lazarus. >> i'm very, very far from an expert on these matters, but i would just offer one observation.

why is, i do not really see the american citizenship issue in the case that the congressman congressman is referring to. if a nazi general happened to be an american citizen it would not alter the way we could do with him militarily. there are questions about the president's authority to implement a drone program. have a nextlly review on that. it has been effective militarily so that is a good thing. >> i will associate myself with professor turley's comments. thank you and i appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions here. helpoing to ask for your in answering what is the number one question i get at town hall

meetings and people running up to me at the grocery store when i am back home in texas. they go something like this. in light of and you can insert whatever you want, benghazi, fast and curious, the iris targeting of advocacy groups, and assay overreach, if you like your health care, you can keep it. varying the terms and waivers of obamacare. the number one question i get is, what can you do about it? we sent you to congress to do something about this. i have listened today and i have that we can enact new laws, that does not work if you can i get through the senate and the president himself will not sign them. we can use the power of the purse. that is pretty much dead. we have heard testimony about that. in the era of continuing resolutions we do not have a lot of options there. we could go to the court, we have heard about the standing issue. we have also even when there is

standing a delay tactic leaves be, the president will termed out by the time any of these court decisions are held. we talked about elections. i think chairman i sent brought --irmaniss -- mpsu. pointcaps%id. point nvel. nl. -- is therei anything else that we could do? >> it does paint a dire picture. as we said before i have encouraged members to consider

member standing. the most troubling thing, i islished an article -- what fascinating about it is because congress has been stripped of more of its power it has put more emphasis on appointments. ay of controlling the white -- >> have we given it up? >> it is by a claim. >> i have said it before. i am sire he -- sorry to say that the ultimate thing is elections. the right answer for this committee is to hold hearings like this to publicize what it violations of the

constitution and for that to become an election issue. missed anything on the remedies against any road -- rogue president? not pointing to anyone in particular. >> with all due respect, that is a gross rent -- misrepresentation of this president. >> i was not pointing to this president. i hypothetical -- a hypothetical rogue president. >> we had one who would have been impeached and convicted had that not happened. result wasy that guaranteed in this very room ranking republican member of the judiciary committee voted to impeach nixon. so, sure. what the professors said was

accurate. you have to win elections. something that has not been mentioned is getting democrats to care about this issue when there is a democratic president. and getting republicans to care about these issues when there is a republican president. know if anyone who is watching this at home has noticed but all the democratic members of the committee have left the room. i think they left -- we are three and a half hours into this hearing. they're obviously not as interested in this. >> one of our problems here is we have a president right now who is not willing to work with congress. i think -- we just had a democrat walk-in. i retract my statement. my apologies. i talked to constituent who worked for the bush white house whose job it was to lobby with congress and i met with somebody from the obama administration exactly twice in three years. i do think it is the president's

duty to engage. i had a question on that but i am out of time. i do think there is a disappointment with the president not being engaged. >> republicans are concerned about executive power when the executive is up to. democrats are concerned about abuses when the executive is a republican. they need to care about issues lot more when someone from their own party occupies the white house and not just someone from the opposite party. >> i will give it back to you. >> thank you. i have missed some of this hearing and i caught some of it on the magic of video, television. joan --terested, the gentlemen had mentioned the possibility of impeachment or impeachable offenses. is that accurate? >> i cannot remember if i brought that up. i may have. >> in what context did you bring that up question mark >> in

response to a question. i am not sure if i did or someone else. >> can anybody on the panel refreshes memory? >> i brought up the constitutional amendment convention. i do not think i brought up impeachment. i agree it is a tool but the congress is to restrain the executive. >> constitutional amendment. you suggested we should have somebody at the convention. >> the question i was asked was people can restrain the executive and i offered that is one way. >> that has never been done before, has it? rex not that i am aware of. on the panelse have thoughts about impeachment? >> i mentioned impeachment earlier. we have been asked several times questions about possible remedies. if we find that a president is behaving lawlessly. i have not said that this president has or that these

examples rise to that level. the ultimate constitutional isck on a lawless president impeachment and ultimately, election. >> nobody is suggesting that the president -- the president has not committed any impeachable offenses. nobody here thinks that, is that right? know.o not an important element is whenever crimes or misdemeanors he has committed were committed knowingly. patternher there is a of abuse of his office. i lay out a consistent pattern whereby president obama has ignored and tried to rewrite for sins of the affordable care act. think the most egregious of these is the one where he has, he is implementing the law in a

way such that he is taxing and burrowing in spending over the next 10 years. $700 billion that this congress never authorized. you may disagree with my interpretation of the law and i know mr. lazarus does but you and i and mr. lazarus would agree that if the president were trying to tax and borrow and spend 700 billion dollars without congressional authorization, that might be an impeachable offense. >> does anyone think the actions of the bush administration going into iraq without actual knowledge of weapons of mass destruction would have been an impeachable offense? mr. lazarus, you seem to be nodding. -- disregard the nod in front of the curtain. i was upset about that. it was a political decision that congress would have to make. >> the war powers issue does come closest for me for both

president obama and president bush. the reason i do not think it rises to that level is because the court decisions have made field so much of a mess. by judicial passivity and not reviewing it, and by the use of historical practice. maintain ano impeachable offense when you have that degree of ambiguity. i do not believe that ambiguity is found in the constitution. i believe the president obama violated the constitution of libya, for example. andbecause of that history that precedent, they can claim that they were acting on reasonable interpretation of the law. >> thank you. you and yieldate back the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. cohen. i have to be careful how i respond to that. thank you. we will recognize another

gentleman from texas. >> thank you, chairman. i disagree with you on the republicans are only concerned about executive abuses when democrats are in control. i personally do not like any executive abuses no matter who the president is. i think our executives have gotten out of control over the last several executives. not to mention the judicial branch which i served in for 22 years. it has exceeded its boundaries of the constitution. we're talking about the executive branch. the constitution if iran were correctly, -- if i revert correctly -- remember correctly, is legislation branch hundreds. the my -- they put the most important ones first by and the least important last because we are elected and the guys on the

other end are appointed forever. the middle is the executive branch. the president has said we are not a bandanna republic. there is a lot of definitions to banana republic that my view of -- bananapublic is republic is a lawless country. we are a country of laws create not people. but yet, we are in a situation where the law means different things to different people, and it is not enforced and like many have said here, back home in texas, they just do not understand where the president gets the authority to do some of these things without congressional intervention. i agree with the people that i represent. .heir book -- from both parties how can he do that, if i hear that once i hear that 100 times. how can he do that and what are you going to do about it question mark i get asked that a lot. we have had some discussion

about those things. we know the subject. there are a lot of subjects where he will question whether the president has authority but let's spend one moment on one issue. obamacare according to the supreme court is eight tax. the president has used the law and has said that i am going to postpone that tax for this group first. big business. i will postpone the tax for six weeks for individuals. i will postpone the tax one year for small businesses. he is postponing taxes. since i have no life i have read a obamacare. i do not see that in their where the president, we gave him the authority to postpone a tax but he does it. if he has the legal authority to do that, which i doubt, but he used that authority, what is to prevent him from just going and looking at the irs code which is a mess.

i do not know any american who thinks the irs code is a good bill. but rather than fix it, we just make it bigger every year. so the president goes to the irs code and says this group of businesses, they are just having a bad year. like green businesses or we could use the energy companies on the other end. the oil and gas industry. i will postpone paying income tax for year. because i said so. dotake this group and something similar. tweak their tax rather than pay 38%. they will pay 20% for the next year. it seems to me if he has the legal authority to amend taxes which the affordable care act is a tax according to the supreme court. what is to prevent him from just amending any tax to his liking? if you would,is

professor turley. >> thank you. i -- in your first remark about it is true that they are equal branches. the most timeent on congress because it is the thumping heart of the madisonian system. it is where the magic happens and that is to take those interests that destroy countries and turn them into a majority. compromise trade when we get to the issue of taxes, that is one of the most divisive issues facing the country. when someone comes through for congress and says i want my group to be excluded, it produces a great deal of heat from people saying, what about my group, how long should this apply? it is perhaps the most divisive issue raised in congress and that is why it was given to congress so that those types of issues would be subject to this transformative process of legislation. >> do you believe that that

an unlawful constitutional active the president started amending the tax code on his whim? >> yes, i do. >> let me ask you one other question if i may. you have mentioned remedies. what about the remedy of a [inaudible] with that lie in any situation where congress thought the executive had not enforced the law? >> it can be difficult in some of these if you are trying to use it against the president but you can challenge some of these decisions. the hhs decisions. you're go with if standing to do so. this is one of those times when i get off the train. this is not an apa issue. this is a constitutional issue. president usurping the

authority of congress. to say that this is something we leave to agencies i think radically misunderstands the severity of the situation. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i want to thank all of our witnesses for excellent hearing and great discussion on what i think is the most -- one of the most important issues facing our country today and i want to thank the members for a very strong participation in today's hearing. witnesses had to stay longer than they thought they would but that only means you have had the opportunity to talk. and think through and to me this issue even more extensively. i thank all of you for your participation. this concludes today's hearing. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record and this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> members of the new york delegation in the u.s. house came to the floor to pay tribute to the victims of the metro north train accident. four people were killed and more than 70 injured in the sunday morning derailment in the bronx. > night on forest lane in cold

spring, my friend, jim lovell, won't be coming home. his children, brooke and jack and finn and hudson, the youngest, who goes to school with my little girls in cold spring and who's played in my house, will be missing the father they love and the beloved member of the community because he was one of the four victims on the metro north train that derailed on sunday. mr. maloney: we all are saddened and heart broken by this tragic event, and i stand here with my colleagues from new york to honor the four victims and the dozens of injured. new york lost a devoted father in jim, but, of course, we lost a loving sister in donna smith, a caring nurse from queens

a man sic haun, and from montross, and i know nita lowey who represents queen, and ellyol engel who represented the district where the accident concerned and i join with all of you in standing to offer a moment of silence in honor of those killed and of those injured and i ask that we do so now. thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield such time as she would require to my colleague, mrs. lowey from new ork.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i rise to honor the memory of my constituent, james ferrari of montross, new york, who f the four individuals lost their lives in sunday morning's tragedy. he leaves behind a wife, a and r-old daughter extended family. my thoughts and prayers are with them during this time of pain and grief. for the last 10 years, mr. ferrari commuted six days a week into the city to his job s a building supervisor. he was a hardworking new yorker, totally devoted to his his friend and neighbor

told me that he did everything for his family, and now his wife, who is still in shock and daughter, are trying to put all the pieces of their lives together. now congress must do its part to honor all the crash victims by advancing solutions that prevent tragedies like this one from ever happening again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. engel: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. engel: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. this horrific tragedy, unfortunately, happened in my district about half a mile from where i live. when a tragedy like this

happens, senseless tragedy, we as americans all pull together wherever tragedies occur and whether it's by -- ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations out of the chamber. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: and that's what we're doing here this afternoon. we're pulling together in the face of terrible, terrible tragedy. i know that an investigation is going on from the national transportation safety board, and i hope that in short time we'll know what happened and perhaps we'll be able to take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again, whether it be by legislation or other types of ways we can ensure that this doesn't happen again. my heart goes out to all the victims and their families of this senseless, senseless

tragedy. and we as new yorkers and as americans in times of tragedy always pull together. new york pulled together after 9/11, and we're pulling together after this horrific tragedy as well. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. crowley: mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i, too, want to rise to mourn the loss of these four individuals and all those injured in this tragic accident. in particular, i want to recognize the family of kisook ahn of queens. the entire korean american community in queens and throughout the city and the tristate region mourn her loss. she was a resident of my hometown of woodside queens, particularly one of -- want to express our sorrow on her loss and all those who lost their lives or injured, once again, in this tragic event sunday. our thoughts and prayers are

with her family and all the victims and their families. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: let me thank congressman eliot engel for the compassion he's demonstrated for the families of those that survived, those that were injured and those that have been lost. while all of us are anxious to see the results of the investigation, we all have to ask ourselves, could this be avoided, and did these people die in vain and what are we going to do about it? it would appear to me the first thing that everyone thinks of is the infrastructure, could this have happened in japan or china or some other industrialized country? it just stresses how important infrastructure is. it's not just a question of looking modern and developing

commerce, it's human lives we're talking about. let's not those people that died or injured die in vain. let's look at our bridges, our tunnels, our airports all over our great nation so we can avoid these types of tragedies. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleagues for coming forward, these moving tributes. i want to add to those micon dolences and those of my -- my condolences and those of my family. this is a very resilient nation and new yorkers in tough times like these, we come together. every davey thousands might have constituents that -- every day i have thousands of my constituents who ride these trains. i pledge support and those of my

>> house members gathered for the annual christmas tree lighting ceremony. the tree came from the colville national forest in washington state. >> good evening and welcome. congratulations for a job well done. i want to thank ron farris and the washingtond delegation for their presence here tonight and i want to thank job forest service for the that they have done. let me say to the young people who spoke, great job. a lot better than if i were singing. if you look at at this awe-

inspiring tome and you look up at the night sky, you'll get overwhelmed. perhaps this is those humble -- just as those humble shepherds were when the angels appeared before them. out of the middle of nowhere, they must have wondered what on earth is going on. fear not, the angel said, for the -- behold him i bring you good tidings of great joy. born this day in the city of david, a savior and my which is christ the lord. soft the shivers when, to find they went to off find him in the major. this may be an old story but a mighty one to grasp. it takes great faith, it takes true patience, much like the search for the perfect president itself. we come to recognize it is not so much about the [inaudible]

as it is about the serving of the story. what emerges is a spirit of giving and a message of hope for all seasons. the highest and on earth, peace and goodwill toward men. that in the words of a great philosopher is what christmas is all about, charlie brown. so now, it is time to light the tree so we can all go back inside before everyone gets too cold. our special tree lighting expert is a first grader in colville, washington. ladies and gentlemen, escorted by the u.s. capitol police chief, please join me in welcoming giovanni gainer. [applause] you may not know this, but

we require all of our tree letters to have some special qualifications. now, as i understand it, when you grew up, you want to be a police officer. were talking and if it is ok with you, we would --e to make you a capital junior capitol hill police officer for today. so chief, if you will put the badge on. now, your official. got the hat and the badge. here is the switch right here -- not yet. you and i will do this together. two, one., three, [applause] ♪

come on. ♪ [applause] isn't the tree beautiful, ladies and gentlemen? let me thank you for coming and joining us tonight and joining speaker john boehner, the washington state congressional allegation, the forest service, the terrific marine band, and all of us for this year's tree lighting ceremony. thank you. merry christmas, and have a good evening. rolloutonths after the

of the health care law and website, president barack obama said the overhaul is working and not repealing it as long as i am president." his remarks are next. we will hear from the president's chief of staff about the limitation of the health care law. later, the house judiciary committee looks at how the obama administration has made certain changes to the affordable care act by using executive powers. next "washington journal," jim mcdermott talks about the health care law and the latest on the budget negotiations. then house armed services committee member duncan hunter will discuss the recent deal with iran over its nuclear program. fnd on the recent launch of "politico" magazine. also your calls, e-mails, and tweets.

"washington journal" each morning on c-span. > as you walk in, there are tables out in front with lots of pamphlets. prior to entering the gun show and the pamphlets are how the government is trying to take away your right to own guns and the ehrman is doing this and obamacare is doing -- terrible. those are the folks i wanted to talk to. they were the guys with the leaflets and the ideas. an academic. i am doing researchers -- research on these organizations and ideas and trying to understand the guys and i understand -- i study men who believe the stuff. at me suspiciously. here is what i am. i do not get it. here is my job. i want to understand how you guys feet -- see the world. i want to understand that --

your worldview. to convince meg and i will not convince you. what is on the table as i want to understand why you think the way you do. downward mobility. the feelingsl on and rage of "angry white men" on c-span2. >> now president obama on the health care law. the president spoke for 15 minutes from the eisenhower executive office building. >> good afternoon. in 2007 when i was a 19-year-old college student in orlando, i began having some symptoms. i was covered under my parents insurance which was necessary since it required several surgeries. four years later while in graduate school in miami, my

symptoms returned and i had to start infusions. each range from $12,000 to $15,000 at a clinic and it would have been more to receive hospital. fortunately because of the affordable care act, i remained on my parents insurance while in grad school and was able to receive the treatment i needed at an affordable cost. at 26 and working in a great organization i have the benefit of having my own insurance. i recognize i am lucky to have these benefits but not every american is as lucky. we have discussed the cost of private insurance and we would not able to afford it. the affordable care act for young adults hardest starting their careers -- [inaudible] $700 to $800paid per month because of my health condition and because i am a woman. this gives me the flexibility to

open my own small business and pursue photography as a viable career option without worrying about how i will afford health insurance. thank you and now it is my honor to introduce the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> all right. thank you, monica. >> thanks for everybody out there who cares deeply about this issue. monica's story is important because for all the day-to-day fights here in washington around the affordable care act, it's stories like hers why we took on this fight in the first place. for too long, working families were more vulnerable to the anxieties of today's economy than a broken health care system. we took up the fight because we believe that in america, nobody should have to worry about going

broke just because somebody in their family or they got sick. we believe that nobody should have to choose between putting food on their kid's table or taking them to see a doctor. we believe we are a better country than a country where we allow every day 14,000 americans to lose their health care coverage or where tens of thousands of americans die because they didn't have health care or where oup -- out of pocket costs drove people into poverty. we thought we were better than that and that's why we took this on. [applause] and that's what has gotten lost a little bit over the last couple of months. and our focus had to shift towards working 24/7 to fix the

web site, healthcare.gov where people can buy affordable insurance plans. and today, the web site is working well. more problems may pop up, as they always do when you are launching something new and when they do, we'll fix those, too. but what we know that just after the first month, despite all the problems in the rollout, about half a million people across the country are poised to gain health care coverage in marketplaces and medicaid on january 1, some for the very first time. we know that. \[applause] and that number is increasing every day and it's going to keep growing and growing and growing because we know there are 41 million people out there without health insurance and we know there are a whole bunch of folks out there who are underinsured and we know the demand is there

and we know the product on these marketplaces are good and provides choice and competition for people that allow them, in some cases for the very first time, to have the security that health insurance can provide. you know, the bottom line is, this law is working and will work into the future. people want the financial stability of health insurance and we're going to keep on working to fix whatever problems come up in any start-up, any launch of a product this big that has an impact of 1/6 of our economy. whatever comes up, we're going to fix it, because we know that the ultimate goal, the ultimate aim is to make sure that people have basic security and the foundation for the good health that they need. now, we may never satisfy the laws upon us. i think that's fair to say.

some of them are rooting for this law to fail. that's not in my opinion, by the way. they say it very explicitly. some have convinced themselves that the law has failed, regardless of the evidence. but i would advise them to check with the people who are here today and the people that they represent all across the country whose lives have been changed for the better by the affordable care act. i got a letter from julia walsh in california. she was diagnosed with leukemia and lymphoma. i have a lot of things to worry about, she wrote. thanks to the affordable care act, there are a lot of things i don't have to worry about, like whether there are a lifetime cap on benefits or will bankrupt my family. i can't begin to tell you how much that piece of mind means. that's what the affordable care act means to julia. because this law banned lifetime

limits on the care you or your family can receive, she doesn't have to choose. she can do both. sam weir a doctor in north carolina emailed me, the coming years will be challenging all of us, but my colleagues and i draw strength from knowing that beginning with the new year, the preventive care many of our current patients have been putting off will be put off and the patients we have not seen will be able to get the care they have long needed. that's the difference that affordable care act will be for many patients. many more, like mammograms, flu shots, patients will stay healthy. \[applause] >> at the young age of 23, just

ine ula is battling cancer for the second time. her mom e mailed me from cleveland university hospital and she stopped by to pick up the medicine. if she was uninsured, it would have cost her $4500 but she is insured because the affordable care act has let her and three million people have gained coverage to stay on their parents' plan until they are 26. [applause] >> that means just teen's mom all she had to cover was the $25 co-pay. because the affordable care act, more than seven million seniors and americans with disabilities have saved $1,000 200 on their prescription medicine.

[applause] \[applause] >> 8.5 million families have gotten an average of 100 back from their insurance company because it spent too much on things like overhead. and not enough on their care. and by the way, health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years. so we are actually bending the cost of health care overall which benefits everybody. \[applause] >> that's what this law means to millions of americans. and my main message today is we're not going back. we aren't go to go betray monica, julia, or joanne. i mean that seems to be the only alternative that obamacare's critics have. let's go back to the status quo because they sure haven't

presented an atlantative. -- an alternative. ask the opponents what they would do differently. their answer seems to be let's go back to what it used to be. the republican leader in the senate was asked what people without benefits from health care, he refused to answer and tense of thousands are on track. he repeated repeal over and over and over again and we have heard that from a lot of folks on that side of the aisle. but i have always said, i will work with anybody to implement and improve this law effectively. you got good ideas, bring them to me. let's go. but, we are not repealing it as long as i'm president. [applause]

we will make it work for all americans. if you don't like this law \[cheers and applause] >> despite all the money that people are benefiting from it, you think this law is a bad idea, you have to tell us differently what you would do to cut costs, cover more people, making insurance more secure. you just can't say that the system was working with 41 million people without health insurance. you can't just say that the system's working when you have a whole bunch of folks who thought they had decent insurance and then when they got sick, turned out it wasn't there for them or left with tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs that were impossible to pay. right now, what that law is

doing -- yes, you agree with me right now what this law is doing is helping folks and we are getting started with the exchanges and marketplaces. we are not going to walk away from it. if i have to fight another three years to make sure this law works, that is what i am going to do. [applause] but what is important for everybody to remer is that not helpedat the law has millions of people but there are millions more who stand to be helped. we have got to make sure they know that. clearly thatery our poor execution in the couple of months on the website clouded the fact that there are a bunch of people who stand to benefit. now the website is working for

the vast majority of people. we need to make sure that folks refocus on what is at stake here, which is the capacity for you or your families to be able to have the security of decent health insurance at a reasonable cost through choice and competition on this marketplace and tax credits that you may be eligible for. that can save you hundreds of dollars in premium costs every month potential he. -- potentially. we need people to know that we are getting the technology fixed, we need you to go back and take a look at what is actually going on. because it can make a difference in your lives and the lives of your families. and maybe it will not make a difference right now if you're feeling healthy, but i promise you, if someone in your family, heaven forbid, gets sick, you will see the difference. it will make all the difference for you and your families.

i will need some help in spreading the word. i will need some help in spreading the word. i need you to spread the word about the law, the benefits, the protections, about how folks can sign up, tell your friends, tell your family, do not let the initial problems with the website discourage you. nowuse it is working better and it is going to keep on working better over time. every day i check to make sure that it is working better. and we have learned not to make wild promises about how perfectly smooth it is going to be at all times. want healthy insurance through the marketplaces you will be able to get on and find the information that you need for your families at healthcare.gov. friends to tell your and your family, tell your

coworkers, tell your neighbors. let's help our fellow americans get covered. let's give every american a fighting chance in today's economy. all right. thank you so much, everybody. god bless you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [cheers and applause]